THE SEATTLE CONSENT DECREE
A Community Report 2012-2013
You might be hearing about the consent decree ending in Seattle after over a decade of federal oversight. You’re also probably seeing stories claiming the consent decree has successfully rooted out “bad cops” and reformed the Seattle Police Department (SPD). Well, here’s the truth based on the numbers:
The consent decree has been wasteful, ineffectual and harmful.
While SPD and the Department of Justice speak of transformation and progress over the past decade, the data tell a different story: of ballooning budgets, missed opportunities for true public safety, and a police force that continues to target people of color.
During the years of the Consent Decree, the Police Budget increased by more than $122 Million.
Police budget ballooned by
48%
Annual Police Budget:
2012 = $252,200,000
2013 = $374,300,000
Population:
2012 = 636,557
2013 = 779,2000
While population only grew by
22%
The consent decree has blocked true community safety.
Missed Opportunities
These budget items were cut in just one year to support the growth of the police budget
Just some of the items cut from the 2023 budget. Source: Seattle Budget Office
More for Cops, Less for Everyone Else
Average Hourly Pay for Selected Seattle City Departments, 2022
Police Officers are among the highest-paid city employees. Human Service workers are among the lowest. Source: 2022 Employee Job and Wage Data, Seattle City Data.
Stealing from Jumpstart
In 2020, a large coalition, including nonprofits, labor unions, and community advocates, came together to pass 'JumpStart,' a big business payroll tax designated to fund affordable housing, Green New Deal initiatives, and equitable development.
However, shortfalls for the past two years have led the City to raid JumpStart funds to cover the ballooning police budget.
These amounts are 5-6% of the entire police budget. Source: 2023 Adopted Budget, Seattle City Data.
Police Spending Required by the Judge and Monitor
The consent decree is overseen by a U.S. District Court Judge and a court-appointed Monitor. The Judge and Monitor have been strong voices for expanding police funding.
The Judge
Here is Judge James Robart scolding the City Council for considering reducing the police budget and funding non-police emergency responses in response to the popular 2020 George Floyd / Breonna Taylor uprisings:
And when [City Council] decide to take matters into their own hands in contravention of the Consent Decree, then they drag me into a situation that I don’t want to be in, which is telling them, ‘no, you can’t do that.’
Robart also blocked a City Council ban on SPD’s use of tear gas, pepper spray and other so-called “less lethal weapons”, despite widespread reports of injury and harm to protestors. Robart’s ruling agreed with the DOJ’s advisement that:
There is a serious question regarding whether the removal of these less lethal options (in particular without additional guidance or training to officers) is in violation of the Consent Decree’s provisions.
The Monitor
The nominally independent Monitor, Dr. Antonio Oftelie, in practice has often defended SPD interests. Recent investigative reporting has revealed his close ties to the police – including evidence that a pro-police funding op-ed he published was secretly ghost-written by SPD’s Chief Strategy Officer.
Here is an excerpt from an email written by Dr. Oftelie to the chair of the City Council’s Public Safety and Human Services Committee:
The Court and the Monitor are increasingly concerned about the reduction of funding to the Seattle Police Department… The City is in a legal agreement with the Court to ensure that its police department is functioning at an exceptional level.
Dr. Oftelie has often emphasized the need for increased police spending. In this 2021 memo, he takes the City Council to task for proposing cuts to an expensive “Early Intervention” data system that was supposed to predict “bad behavior” among police – but was shown to have no predictive power:
In reviewing the Seattle City Council Budget Actions … the Monitoring Team is concerned that proposed cuts to funding for data collection and analysis requirements critical to the Consent Decree may place the City at further risk of non-compliance.
The city continues to fund this flawed system “despite near-universal acknowledgment of its failings”.